Kitch

You're right. I don't have an example of a truly free market from which to make that judgement. I won't deny that. But, if I make that concession, then it would only be fair for someone to make the same concession about a truly communist society; that one has never existed (on a scale larger than a small village). People are quick to shut down Marxist thought on the grounds that there is no incentive for people to work therefore some will selfishly take advantage of the system. Well, in a free market there is no regulation so there is nothing stopping them from exploiting other people... as a way to benefit from the system selfishly. You, likewise, can't make the judgement, like Blueblood did, that a truly open market would prevent/not allow concentration of media. My point is that the CRTC may have been intended to serve that purpose (MAY have been), but in recent years it doesn't serve that purpose. Let's say the market did open up... more. Rogers, Canwest and Bell Globemedia (I think those are the corporations) already own a large number of media outlets. What would stop them from owning them all? Customers? The advertisers are the customers... not viewers/readers/listeners.

Censorship yes, but its intended purpose is not concentration... at least it wasn't. It was supposed to prevent people from seeing/hearing 'harmful/offensive' things. I BELIEVE it was also supposed to prevent corporations from holding too many media outlets in single markets. I don't disagree that there should be no censoring of anything... unless we really don't believe in freedom of speech. But then the government has to take some sort of control over the media industry. I don't think I need to give my opinion on why concentration is dangerous... but a truly free market without regulation doesn't prevent this from happening. ANYWAY, my initial point was that you can't deny that media has become concentrated in recent years and that COULD have resulted in the muting of dissenting voices of provinces that don't like Harper's policies.

On that note, why do you assume that things like coffee shops are important to Venezuelans? I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that the "majority of its citizens live in squalor", I don't claim to "know" things like that. But perhaps they place importance on different things than the people of Alberta do. You can't REALLY compare the two regions like that.

And what does that $19/h do for Albertans who suffer the effects of sour gas?

Why are conservative types so arrogant? A nation's ability to create/absorb monetary wealth only increases the standard of living for its citizens to a point... then a few people just continue to get richer. Call me a prophet, but I see the conservative response to my assertion being one of these two (seemingly the only two conservative responses possible): 1. Ignore opinions that are very different from yours because acknowledging them gives them legitimacy. 2. Ridicule people that have opinions very different from yours because making them look stupid refutes their point.

Maybe I missed something in some earlier post... but I never referred to cuts. Unless you mean cuts to the CRTC's ability to regulate the business of media and prevent concentration.

Ya, it would be ridiculous to think that conservatives would censor or promote censorship.

Maybe some things aren't "on the radar" anymore. Or, maybe the impotence of the CRTC and deregulation of the media industry leading to the concentration of the ability to disperse information has allowed certain people/organizations to censor the "news". Just a thought

Freedom of speech should be limitless. If it incites violence, those that commit acts of violence are to be blamed. I don't blame others for things that I do, I don't find it fair that somebody could blame their own actions on my words. Just my humble opinion.

I watched the debate and have my own impressions from it. Strangely enough, my impressions seem to be very different from what different media outlets have to say, and after reading a number of posts in this thread, I can only come to one conclusion: People hear what they want to hear. Anyone who likes Harper seems to think that he was 'above' all the bickering... which some like to call 'debating'. I could find similar stances from people who support each candidate too. Is it possible to watch these things with a completely open mind?

I really hate all this talk about leadership. What does it mean that Steven Harper is a better leader than Stephan Dion? Really, what does that mean? To label one a leader implies that others are followers... does it not? If we're talking leadership 'on the economy', then really we're referring to a good accountant. But what does managing my personal finances have to do with the management of a nation's finances? (I know how they're related but they're not similar... for those who would love to use this statement as an indication of my naivety). If we're talking leadership on keeping Canada "safe and secure" (other than using American political language in order to imply some things about the world and Canada in that world), then really we're referring to one's willingness to pull a metaphorical trigger. If we're talking leadership 'on the environment', then really we're referring to somebody who makes policies/regulations that police people in such a way so as to cause a change that (agree or disagree) is better for everyone/everything in the long run. I don't know about anyone else, but I've got enough confidence in myself to live my life the way that I see fit. I don't need somebody telling me that I ought to do this or ought not do that. Our choice of political leaders is nothing more than an attempt to control those who have different political views from our own. I am very near as far as you can get on the left of the spectrum, so I'd like to see a government that prevents business from being more powerful/important than individuals. I think that a totally free market is as dangerous/impossible as is a totally communist society (REAL Marxist, with no monetary system... not the Soviet quasi-communism that people use as the standard). So I'd like to see rules with regard to how businesses interact with each other and with citizens so as to prevent people from being negatively impacted through "externalities". But for people on the right of the spectrum, this type of regulation (I presume) is seen as a hindrance to an individual's ability to 'succeed' (however one might define that). So people subscribing to this perspective would benefit from a government that advocates for business rights over individual rights... even if a right wing/conservative person views business rights as the same as or equally important to individual rights. So really, the discussion about who would be the 'best' leader is irrelevant. We're all looking for people who will advocate for our own social ideals... we're not looking for some one who tells us what to do or how to live. On the contrary, if we are lucky enough to have our chosen "leader" elected, we want that person to tell OTHERS how to live. Any thoughts?

I recently heard a commercial (I'm not sure if it was sponsored by Elections Canada or some other group) that said Canadians now need to provide proof of identity AND proof of address in order to vote. Does this mean that homeless people can't vote? Is it really illegal to be homeless??? What does that say about our values... or at least those who made that a law??? (Assuming that it's true of course). Does anybody know anything about this?

Not at all. That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm opposed to. That would be society imposing their beliefs on that priest. You'd have to consider both parties in the situation though. Perhaps the gay couple are catholic. The priest should absolutely never lose his licence for that though... it's his choice. Just because the couple are/claim to be catholic doesn't have anything to do with any priest.

Perform marriages? You mean, for example, a catholic priest marrying a gay couple? I do mean that I believe people are free to choose their religious beliefs. People are free to have their opinions about other people as well. But people have no right to determine the way in which others live. I was raised catholic... I no longer practice nor do I believe. I have reasons for that and I won't hesitate to express how I feel about catholicism if asked, but I'd never try to force someone else to live a certain way because of how I feel. Example, I have a problem with our society because we hinder the ability of certain animals to survive and evolve. I wouldn't ever want to regulate human life though... policing is just as bad to me. I'd rather try to show people why it is important to consider animals when building a road through a forest, for example. What I'm getting at is that people are free to choose, as well as free to like or dislike the choices of others. But to impose one's views on another is wrong, in my opinion. Here, impose does not equal influence. Influence does not control the actions of others... it shines light in some directions and not others, but the 'actor' is the one who chooses to 'act'. (Sorry if my thoughts are all over the place).

I totally agree that the classroom shouldn't be used as a forum to announce ones political views. But teacher's are paid to be mentors as well as instructors in a given area of the curriculum. If a student were to ask me what I thought of something I'd be open and honest (depending on the student of course). We are not supposed to simply follow the curriculum though. (Again though, in a science class I'll have little opportunity to talk about things like this).

I've been honest, maybe not polite to everyone, but to those whose first post wasn't aimed at discrediting me as a teacher I absolutely was. Actually, I did learn from that Geoffrey guy, and am enjoying the conversation with Michael Bluth, but the rest of the people here (and I apologize to those who were also polite and informative) responded to things that I said with insults. If a person is constantly learning, does this mean that they are devoid of opinions? And can learning not include the opinions of others, whether or not I agree with them? True, I initially intended not to talk about my personal views here (in this thread) because I knew that people would stop posting (I'm aware that my anti-corporation views aren't well liked here). There is very little that I can say now to convince people (as if I cared to) that... well, I don't know what I'd try to convince people about myself. Some have made up their mind already... some justifiably so given the way I reacted to some comments. But what the hell!?! Had I come here and said 'Canada should divide because Ontario would be financially more fit on its own', and that 'we need privatized health care (for example)' I don't think that I'd have so many people questioning my ability as a teacher or insulting my views. Somebody ASKED me why I had anti-corporate views, so I answered... I didn't want to have to defend myself from people who disagree with me... I just answered a question. I'd be happy to try to defend my opinions, but to have to defend myself is ridiculous. Boo hoo for me right? F that. All I'm saying is that some of you people talk a whole lot of shit with VERY limited knowledge of the natural world. My initial post was not a lie. I wanted to know what conservative/pro business/whatever you call such people (no insult intended with those labels) thought about confederation and what value they saw in it. Somewhere the conversation moved on to other things.

See? Even with an honest, polite and completely valid response to a question, some of you people can do nothing more than ridicule as a way of discrediting. In actuality, if you must know, I was working for the world renowned scientist Dr. Peter St. George Hyslop. Look him up if you want. His research, as well as that of his associates, is VERY promising. The rest of your rant is closed minded and ignorant blabbering. Good day.

Well, I don't plan on my political views influencing the way I teach science/biology. If I'm asked personal questions outside of the classroom, perhaps I'll be honest. But despite my forceful method of conversing here, I have grown to believe that NOBODY has the right to determine how I ought to live my life, and conversely, I too have NO right to determine the way others ought to live. So no, I wouldn't allow myself to have that type of influence on my students. However, I will absolutely teach my students to (I'll TRY to at least) use the scientific method (as much as is applicable) in everyday life. All that means is understanding that anything is possible until demonstrated to be impossible , and that you must evaluate as many variables as you can to understand the truth of a matter, as far as it is comprehensible and knowable. Would it be fair for me to hope that teacher's with views that oppose mine wouldn't influence their students as well? If so, why is that? I agree that sometimes the profit motivation is beneficial to all parties involved and not involved (if that's what you mean by it's the best motivation... if not, please explain). That is partly why I must concede that my opinion on the science vs. business education is nothing more than my humble opinion. However, I would also say that when such a wide spread benefit is experienced as a result of a profit motive, it is not (always) the intended effect. It's just a happy coincidence that everyone benefits. If that places any less value on the said motive, I don't know, I'm not in a position to say for sure. (All I can say is that I personally don't like it. I'd rather a society that isn't 'dog eat dog'... a more considerate, empathetic... egalitarian... generally altruistic society... that's just what I'd like, and for some individuals, not all, the profit motive opposes that).

Well, I suppose it's nothing more than a subjective and biased opinion based on my underlying views of the world. The way I see it, a stock broker, for example, does little to benefit society (except for make their client rich, which does have its own effects). Whereas, a biologist, for example, strives to learn more about the natural living world, which provides everyone with knowledge (valuable for its own merit) which we can use to make all of our lives better while reducing the negative effects we have on other living things. However, as I said, this is a subjective and biased opinion since someone with a specific business degree could very well come up with an example of a business endeavour that benefits us and other living things as well. You see, I understand that in our current society, we need money... more and more money to fund these high level medical research projects. But in my opinion, and as a scientist who has worked in a research lab (and benefited from sitting in on seminars given by some of the world's most renowned scientists), the profit motive is not the ideal driving force for medical research. For example, I worked at the CRND at the University of Toronto where we did molecular biological research to learn about Alzheimer's disease. We were attempting to characterize the disease so that we could possibly find a cure. We didn't receive the big funding for this research though... even though this is what would benefit society most in the long run. The labs with the most funding (received from pharmaceutical companies) did research to find therapeutic drug targets. With this goal, it is possible to find short term solutions more quickly (the speed is no more likely than with general characterization). The point is that the companies want to sell drugs, not cure Alzheimer's. This is just one example, but the profit motivation leads to less benefit for all of society than does the pure motivation to seek knowledge. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending scientists as a whole... there are plenty driven by money). That's the best I can explain my view, but I should definitely not shut the door on the value of other fields of study.

I've explained why it has those effects. You choose not to 'believe', for whatever reason. It does indeed have those consequences, and AGAIN, I did explain why... you did little to disprove any of my examples. Michael Bluth did try. And by try I don't mean to sound arrogant... just that you didn't even attempt. You simply commented on the perceived problem with my views given my chosen occupation. Not a single comment on any of my examples. Thus, you disputed, but did not attempt to refute. Here, something that might help: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refute

I responded to insults with insults. Call me childish. I didn't demonstrate, as well as I can on an internet forum, that economic growth is bad for everyone? Did you read ANY of my posts? Take this from the very post that you're replying to here: "Well, that economic growth will have all the other consequences that I've spoken of... reduced biodiversity (which I'm positive you don't understand the significance of, or understand the concept at all), air pollution, cultural pollution (I haven't explicitly talked about this, but it includes our consumption of manufactured desires)." Demonstrated. Your address doesn't discredit you... I never meant to attempt to say so... it would be a logical fallacy on my part to say so. What I did intend to show was that there is a reason for your views. People with money tend to like to keep it and get more of it and oppose anything that hinders their ability to do so... even if it is detrimental to other people and living beings. Your address is nothing more than a plausible reason for your views. But that's all a below the belt shot that has nothing to do with the topic... a topic which you have yet to even attempt to refute.

Advances in medicine are POSSIBLE, maybe not likely in our current society, in the absence of an abundance of money. The profit motive does lead to a lot of it, but I'm sure there are people out there who do the work not for their own financial benefit. For example, the people that I worked with at the University of Toronto performing research on Alzheimer's while making little more than 30 000 annually... with PhD's!!! We're still at war as 'developed' nations. Little has changed there except for who the soldiers are, who decides what constitutes justification for war, and the sophistication of killing apparatuses.

On the natives... as I said... "Perhaps they weren't all that ecologically irresponsible, I don't know either way for sure." I've heard examples of exploitation of resources by them as well. The point is that not all humans have been involved in such practices. This is important because it prevents us (or should) from claiming that it is innately human to act as we do with regard to the environment.

Yours only. My other comment, while probably not my greatest move, was in response to the things others have said. I suppose I should be the 'better man' and not 'stoop to that level' huh? Ya well, I've yet to meet anyone here (other than yourself... and a few others that posted earlier in this thread) that can comprehend anything more sophisticated. I'm not shy from engaging in intellectually useful discussions or dimwitted battles of insults. I'll save the former for those able and willing though.

Your ignorance is blinding. Hahahahah burning each other alive!?!? How are we different from them in that respect? Assuming you're correct in your statement? How does this speak about their 'happiness' anyway?? Money would have prevented these things? I suppose under that logic, the natives here would be happy about their situation after we introduced our way of life to them... makes sense. Read something not found in the globe and mail, there's still hope for ya!